A structural tension arises between the state’s interest in combating unlawful and criminal conduct in pursuit of social justice and the imperative to prevent a single violation from resulting in lifelong exclusion. The Administrative Offense Record Sealing mechanism established under Article 136 of the newly revised Law on Penalties for Administration of Public Security stands at the center of this tension. This article argues that the system does not represent a weakening of anti-drug enforcement. Rather, it reflects a shift in governance from a purely punitive model toward a more integrated approach to correction and rehabilitation, and from stigmatizing exclusion to conditional reintegration. In this sense, the reform embodies a deepening commitment to rule-of-law governance. At its core, it seeks to strike a cautious balance between the protection of fundamental rights and the safeguarding of the public interest. Methodologically, this article combines normative analysis, comparative inquiry, and case-based examination. It develops a coherent analytical framework that clarifies the institutional foundations of the system, articulates its rights-protective rationale, and evaluates its potential social risks, thereby offering a multidimensional and nuanced account of this complex reform.
Xing Tangjie (2026) studied this question.